These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
Viewing entries in
New Case Law
The Attorney General has published a decision overruling Matter of L-E-A III’s recognition of family-based particular social groups. Instead, a family unit will only be considered a valid social group if it is both particularized and socially distinct.
The full text of Matter of R-E-R-M & J-D-R-M can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1412686/dl?inline
The Ninth Circuit has remanded an application for protection under the Convention Against Torture, citing the “extreme violence against individuals on the basis of perceived gang affiliation, deportee status, indigenous heritage, mental illness, and substance abuse. Petitioner has all of these characteristics, each of which would independently place him at risk of torture if he were removed to Mexico.” In addition, the Court declined to dismiss the petition for review under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, citing the government’s delay of over two years from the petitioner’s missed appointment with ICE to the filing of the motion to dismiss and the government’s own evidence that the petitioner was likely in criminal custody, and thus, his whereabouts were likely known to the parties and the Court.
The full text of Uc Encarcion v. Bondi can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/09/30/22-1601.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that when the government becomes aware that notice of an upcoming removal hearing has been ineffective (i.e., notice has been returned), it must take additional steps, when practicable, to provide notice to the non-citizen. In this case, the Court found that personal service of the Order to Show Cause - which did not contain the date and time of the first immigration court hearing - was not sufficient on its own. Furthermore, even if a non-citizen has failed to update his or her address with the immigration court, they have not forfeited their constitutional right to notice.
The Court also suggested certain practicable steps that the government could take when a notice of hearing is returned as undeliverable. “One alternative is to consider whether the address in the A-file matched the address to which the Government sent the notice of hearing by certified mail. The record indicates that, when the approval of Rivera-Valdes’s employment authorization application was sent to the Cleveland address that included ’Ave.,’ he showed up to retrieve his authorization papers. It was only after subsequent mailings were sent without the word ‘Ave.’ in the Cleveland address that the OSC and notice of hearing were returned as ‘not deliverable as addressed’ and ‘unclaimed.’ The district court should consider if any discrepancy in the addresses was a basis for the unsuccessful mailings, and if so, whether the Government could have taken additional steps to correct it.
The dissent concludes that remand is unnecessary because Rivera-Valdes ‘confirmed’ or ‘corroborated’ that the address listed on the OSC—which omitted the word ‘Ave.’—was his current address. But the dissent misreads what the OSC actually states. The OSC did not prompt Rivera-Valdes to confirm the accuracy of the OSC. Rather, the OSC’s signature line prompted Rivera-Valdes’s ‘acknowledgment/receipt of this form.’ This stands in contrast, for example, to the signature line in Rivera-Valdes’s application for employment authorization, which required that the signer ‘certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, that the foregoing is true and correct.”’ In that document, Rivera-Valdes listed his N. Cleveland address with the word ‘Ave.’”
“Another alternative for the district court to consider may be whether sending the notice of hearing by first-class mail was a feasible option. In Yi Tu, we observed that first-class mail may be a reasonably calculated alternative because it can ‘be examined at the end of the day, [whereas certified mail] can only be retrieved from the post office for a specified period of time.’”
The full text of U.S. v. Rivera-Valdes can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/09/18/21-30177.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that an Oregon conviction for unlawful use of a weapon, even when coupled with an enhancement that specifies the weapon is a firearm, is not a crime of violence because it does not have as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.
“ The firearm enhancement statute applies to ‘the use or threatened use of a firearm, whether operable or inoperable, by a defendant during the commission of a felony.’ Although this language requires the use or threatened use of a firearm, it does not, on its face, require the use or threatened use of a firearm ‘against the person of another.’”
The full text of United States v. Keast can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/09/10/24-1253.pdf
The Seventh Circuit has indicated that the doctrine of consular nonreviewability made extend to findings of inadmissibility made by officials in the United States.
“Muñoz describes the doctrine as one under which ‘the action of an executive officer to admit or exclude an alien’ is not substantively reviewable. We applied the doctrine to a decision by a non-consular officer in Matushkina v. Nielsen, 877 F.3d 289, 295 (7th Cir. 2017). How far the doctrine extends to visa revocations at a port of entry need not be resolved today; we flag this subject only to ensure that no one thinks that the doctrine has been confined inadvertently to decisions by the Department of State at consulates outside our borders.”
The full text of Dubey v. Department of Homeland Security can be found here:
The Fifth Circuit has rejected the proposition that number bars are subject to equitable tolling. The Court did concede that the numerical bar is a claims processing rule and not a jurisdictional bar.
The full text of Garcia Morin v. Bondi can be found here: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-60590-CV0.pdf
The Fifth Circuit has determined that “extreme cruelty,” as required for VAWA cancellation of removal, is a mixed question of fact and law that a federal court has jurisdiction to review. The Court indicated review would be deferential as the determination is fact intensive.
The full text of Simantov v. Bondi can be found here:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-60487-CV0.pdf
The Fifth Circuit has rejected an argument that a Louisiana conviction for aggravated battery is not a crime of violence, finding that the appellant had not demonstrated a realistic probability that Louisiana actually prosecutes reckless conduct under the statute.
The full text of US v. Sereal can be found here: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-30198-CR0.pdf
The Fourth Circuit has rejected the Board of Immigration Appeals’ determination that even de minimis support of a terrorist organization disqualifies a non-citizen from asylum, finding that the agency’s interpretation reads the requirement that support be “material” out of the statute. Rather, the Court determined that “material support” is support that is sufficiently substantial standing alone to help the terrorist organization accomplish its terrorist activities. Thus, a captive laborer who cooked meals using food and supplies purchased by the organization did not provide the organization with material support.
The full text of Ozurumba v. Bondi can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/242070.P.pdf
The Fourth Circuit has remanded an application for protection under the Convention Against Torture filed by a disabled and mentally ill black Guyanese man, finding the agency “ignored relevant evidence relating to McDougall’s claims based on race, physical disability, and criminal-deportee status.”
The full text of McDougall v. Bondi can be found here:
The First Circuit has denied a request to enjoin the termination of parole programs for citizens of Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela, and Nicaragua.
The Court first determined that the parole scheme contemplates the granting of parole only on a case-by-case basis, but does not prevent a categorical termination of parole to groups of beneficiaries. The Court, also determined that the government’s justification for the termination of the parole programs was not clearly erroneous. “DHS explained that it sought to terminate parole early for existing parolees -- rather than permit their parole to naturally expire -- to minimize the number of people who would have otherwise been ineligible by statute for expedited removal proceedings by virtue of their two-year continuous presence in the United States.” The Court recognizes that expedited removal is only applicable to non-citizens who have not been admitted or paroled, but acknowledged that it may be applicable to those individuals whose parole has been terminated.
The full text of Doe v. Noem can be found here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/25-1384P-01A.pdf
The First Circuit has remanded a claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture filed by a Haitian citizen, on the ground that the Board of Immigration Appeals failed to address the risk that low-level prison officials would torture the applicant.
The full text of Fleurimond v. Bondi can be found here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1913P-01A.pdf
The First Circuit has determined that a consular post’s determination that a visa applicant was in the F-1 category, rather than an immediate relative, because he was over age 21 when his petitioning father naturalized, is reviewable by a federal court. The Court determined that the petition reclassification does not constitute a visa denial, and thus, does not implicate the doctrine of consular nonreviewability. The First Circuit also agreed with the Ninth Circuit that a beneficiary’s age at the time of a parent’s naturalization refers not to their biological age, but their CSPA-adjusted age. Thus, because the applicant’s CSPA-adjusted age was 20 at the time of his father’s naturalization, he was properly categorized as an immediate relative.
The full text of Teles de Menezes v. Rubio can be found here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1253P-01A.pdf
The First Circuit has remanded a case in which the Board of Immigration Appeals declined to accept a late filed brief. The applicant had timely filed the brief via ECAS, but counsel had erroneously filed it with the Immigration Court rather than the Board. Three weeks later, the Immigration Court rejected the brief, and the applicant’s counsel immediately re-filed it with the Board. Three days later, the Board rejected the brief as untimely, and directed the applicant to file it with a motion to accept a late filed brief. The applicant’s counsel complied, and four days later, the Board denied the motion, simply stating that the reasons provided were insufficient for the Board to exercise its discretion. The First Circuit remanded for the Board to either provide a more robust analysis or to reconsider its decision.
The full text of Lopez-Gomez v. Bondi can be found here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1921P-01A.pdf
Th First Circuit has determined that it lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that an asylum applicant had not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances should excuse her untimely filing.
The full text of Zapet-Alvarado v. Bondi can be found here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1782P-01A.pdf
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that an immigration judge generally should not continue an individual hearing based on a respondent’s speculative assertion that he or she may be eligible for a new form of relief from removal not previously raised. In this case, the request for a continuance was not accompanied by an application or proof of prima facie evidence for the relief sought (VAWA cancellation of removal).
The full text of Matter of J-A-F-S- can be found here:
The Third Circuit has determined that it lacks jurisdiction to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals not to certify a late-filed appeal.
The full text of Abdulla v. Attorney General can be found here:
The Second Circuit has determined that a Florida conviction for attempted second degree murder is a crime of violence. Because Florida attempted second-degree murder requires an intentionally committed act which would have resulted in death, the offense plainly satisfies the physical force requirement. The court also noted the mens rea for attempted second degree murder was simple higher than simple recklessness.
The full text of U.S. v. Delgado can be found here:
The California Court of Appeal, Second Division, has determined that an indigent moving party is entitled to appointment of counsel under Penal Code section 1473.7, even if the movant is not in federal immigration custody.
The full text of People v. Gutierrez can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that “[a] statute’s textual overbreadth does not always unambiguously establish that there is a realistic probability that the State would apply the statute to conduct falling outside the Federal definition of an offense.” “Thus, we conclude that once DHS establishes the existence of a State drug conviction by clear and convincing evidence, a respondent who argues that a State conviction is categorically overbroad based on differing substance or isomer definitions has the burden of demonstrating a realistic probability that the State prosecutes substances falling outside the Federal definition of a controlled substance.”
This decision turns burdens of proof on their head, forcing a lawful permanent to prove he’s not deportable, rather than forcing the Department of Homeland Security to prove he is.
The full text of Matter of Felix-Figueroa can be found here:
